Thank you Arden. Waiting for your ideas about coloration of ladybirds.

I don't no squat about ladybirds, but I know how you will react if we formulate hypothesis about their coloration:

"Ha, but this doesn't explain this and that <insert biological fact that has not been studied yet>, Darwinism sucks!"

Then we would ask "what's your theory then?"

And your answer: "..."

So what's the point? ???

You are wrong. The problem has been studied. All you can do is to stick on aposematic coloration of ladybirds. Darwinism has no other answer as far as I know. Despite of fungi ladybirds has been studied much more thoroughly and there ire many researches of them.

Heikertinger dismissed aposematic coloration of ladybirds as well as natural selection as source of it.

The facts are following - ladybirds have many predators, especially birds. To those predators are their coloration very convenient signal.

In North America they are eaten by species of Muscivora, Myiarchus, Sayornis, Myiochanes and especially Empidonax. About E.minimus wrote Beal (1912) that in their stomach only three beetle species were more present. Chapin (1925) researched Virco-species nourisment and concluded that Coccinelidae make 1/12 of their food income. In Vireosylva philadelphica they make more than 1/5 of beetles they ate. By V.gilva more than 1/2 of eated beetles and 1/12 of food income...Vireo Huttoni: 5/8 of eated beetles...

There were once a much more greater research of stomach contents of birds. Csiki on Hungary during 1905-1915 reserched more than 2.000 stomachs of birds. Of course he found there suprisingly great number of wasps, ladybirds etc... I am afraid darwinists do not continue in such research any more. Such researches undermine their phantasies of warning coloration of wasps, ladybirds etc. They make nowadays only indoor experiments with birds, but those expariments do not prove anything. The only expriments that counts are those outdoors, in the countryside.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

It's 'fantasy', Martin. Not 'phantasy'. If you're going to say moronic, evasive, ignorant things with terrible syntax, at least get a dictionary and spell the words properly.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus